|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2010.04.25 22:32:00 -
[1]
Greetings, my name is TeaDaze and I'm here to ask for you to vote in the upcoming CSM5 elections. Of course I would be very happy if you decide I am the right candidate for your vote(s) but the most important thing is that you do vote for somebody.
Eve is a unique place with a vibrant and diverse community and where players can shape the news and even the game itself. The CSM is an important part of this, taking player ideas and issues, filtering them and finally passing the best to CCP for a response.
As the role of the CSM has expanded I feel it is even more important to vote for candidates who take the responsibility seriously. It is in the best interests of the Players to vote and continue to post issues in the Assembly Forum because it shows CCP that the CSM process is worth supporting further.
About me
I am a delegate on CSM4 during which I took the secretary role as part of my promise to improve communication. I talked with CCP about ways to improve the production of the Summit minutes which lead to a CCP supplying a member of staff for that purpose, enabling everyone on the CSM to participate fully in discussions. It was also one of my suggestions that lead to CCP making CSM as a stakeholder in the Eve project (thanks to the full support of the rest of CSM4)
I have been playing Eve since 2005 and currently specialise in 0.0 small gang PvP but like many people I started as an empire carebear running missions. I currently a member of a small sov holding Alliance, I also dabble in market trading, have an Alt in Factional Warfare, run a reaction pos and am involved with low scale T2 production via invention so have a wide variety of game experience to draw on. I was selected to be one of the commentators for AT7 and was also invited to be on stage commentating at Fanfest.
I teach classes with Agony Unleashed to help players new to PvP to find their feet.
Out of game I am a senior software developer with an Engineering degree and 12 years of experience in the profession.
What can I offer?
- I take the CSM process seriously and will put in the necessary effort. During CSM4 I spent at least 5-7 hours a week discussing proposals with other players and producing minutes I am methodical and committed to researching any subject raised by the players thoroughly.
- I have a wide breadth of Eve knowledge including areas outside of my primary PvP focus. I will listen to feedback from players on any issue and ensure items are presented to the CSM as proposed by the players before the CSM make any amendments (Accurate Representation).
- I will continue to get correspondence to the players in a timely manner. Some of this might be out of the CSM's control, but in that case the playerbase need to be kept updated even if it is to say that CCP haven't yet published the supplied material.
- Risk should be Rewarded. For example I'm still looking towards Lowsec players for suggestions on how to improve it. If people want to stay in Empire that is fine, but those wanting a riskier path should find it worthwhile to do so (carrot not stick).
- I'm in favour of (where possible) buffing a weaker item instead of nerfing stronger ones. I feel that not all ships need to be good at solo PvP and that racial differences should be maintained rather than homogenizing everything. That said balance is important and must be maintained in some way.
- With Tyrannis on the horizon and a commitment from CCP for a team to continue iterating on the design it is important that the players have a voice, but not at the expense of all the other issues.
Some of you might agree with my position but might have specific issues, I will try to address some of the common ones in a further post.
I will be happy to answer any questions you have.
TL:DR Vote for TeaDaze!
Vote TeaDaze for CSM5!
|
TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2010.04.25 22:33:00 -
[2]
More to come
Vote TeaDaze for CSM5!
|
TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2010.04.25 22:34:00 -
[3]
FAQ will go here
Vote TeaDaze for CSM5!
|
TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2010.04.26 14:29:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Rawr Cristina Hi, nice read
Really it's about time a serious, qualified candidate showed up who can be trusted to remain neutral, as opposed to clearly representing the interests of their alliance/powerbloc or even just their own gameplay style.
More risk, more reward - I agree, totally, but care to share any ideas you have here?
At the last CSM meeting there was a discussion which illustrates my feelings on risk vs reward as well as my commitment to accurate representation of player ideas and my promise to pickup well supported but apparently ignored issues.
There was a proposal in the Assembly hall to remove "Experimental" Gallente storyline missions.
Many people were upset with these missions because they were somehow linked to Factional Warfare even when the player offered the mission was in highsec doing missions for a highsec agent. For those not aware you get given a storyline mission after clearing 8 or so normal missions and they are the way a normal mission runner gains faction standing. This meant that rejecting the offer would require grinding more missions and hoping for a more suitable storyline.
Another complaint was that the missions gave no additional reward for the extra risk involved (heading into lowsec to known mission systems vs other storyline missions of delivering X units of Y in highsec).
Whilst this is outside my usual area of gameplay because nobody else picked it up I raised the issue anyway (I promised during the CSM4 campaign that I would pickup well supported issues being ignored).
Once I had raised the issue as described (again under my pledge of accurate representation) I proposed an amendment so rather than remove the missions that there be a branch (as per the epic arcs) where the player could pick a safer story mission instead. In addition CSM agreed that the reward for the more risky option should be significantly enhanced. The amended proposal was passed with 9 votes for, 0 against.
More risk for more reward whilst also giving the player a choice. Win - win in my opinion
Vote TeaDaze for CSM5!
|
TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2010.04.26 15:27:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Andrea Griffin
Originally by: TeaDaze Why vote for me (and not another 0.0 candidate)? [...]Their combined block voting will take around four or five of the nine available seats (going on previous results).
Perhaps the question should be, "Why vote for another 0.0 candidate at all if they already have so many seats locked in?"
A fair point. Thankfully I'm not just a 0.0 candidate and have a proven track record of supporting lowsec and other issues too (including industry and empire). Yes my primary focus in game is PvP but my primary focus for CSM4 has been to improve communication and ensure the process is followed properly (e.g. no favouritism or short-cuts to getting issues raised).
Until recently Agony only based out of NPC 0.0 which is a different playstyle to sov 0.0 and so it is good to have people with that experience too. We also spend a good deal of time teaching newer players as well as older players new to PvP how to survive in lowsec and 0.0. As part of this we have general question and answer sessions which helps me understand the concerns players new to PvP have.
If enough people take the CSM election seriously then these alliances attempting to split their votes to get multiple people elected will fail to get everyone in and we'll maintain a good balance
Bottom line is that I am willing to put in the effort to the CSM process, have a track record of raising issues not just related to 0.0 and as a returning candidate will not have to get up to speed in the ridiculously short time from taking office till the first CSM summit.
Vote TeaDaze for CSM5!
|
TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2010.04.28 20:20:00 -
[6]
Firstly thanks to all the people for their messages of support
To answer specific questions.
Originally by: Ecatherina W Tea, now that Agony has sov in a constellation in Providence, does that change the way you view Eve? Has anything changed? How do you feel about the current sov mechanisms? Do you think that it is well-balanced at this point?
My reason for asking is of course that I as a member of a large sov holding alliance spend a lot of my hours grinding structures. Time I could see myself spending in a lot of other ways.
I remember that one of the quoted aims for Dominion was to get smaller corps/alliances out into 0.0. I don't believe that was the end result. At the CSM4 summit this was discussed at length along with the missing treaty system which might give good options for bringing smaller entities into Sov 0.0.
It is clear that without a sizeable cap fleet available to commit to the boredom of shooting ihubs and stations at least 3 times that taking Sov is still the dominion of the larger alliances. However what is the alternative? We can't have a system which allows sov to be flipped daily based on timezone superiority nor can the current system be streamlined by simply reducing hit points. I don't have an answer for this, it is tricky to come up with a system that allows 50 people to do something without making it utterly trivial for 500+ people.
In theory defenders get home advantage (by setting the RF timers) which is probably the right way to do it.
A related "hot button" issue is Lag, which needs to be equalised so it is shared by everybody and not just people zoning in. Of course CCP have been working on this and they didn't need CSM to tell them (though we did complain on behalf of the players anyway ).
Because I am realistic I'll add that you are never going to get rid of lag completely. If we get to a point where 1300 people in system is acceptable then the fights will grow to 1500 people and lag again. Of course should CCP actually get to 1300people fighting in system with acceptable lag then many players will be happy for a while
Once you have Sov the upgrade system for ratting anomalies seems to be well implemented (decent isk per hour for a number of pilots in system) but I believe the other professions such as hacking are linked to industry indexes which doesn't make much sense. We've not had results from the wormhole attractor yet but we'll see as time passes. One thing that is up in the air right now is how planetary interaction will work with Sov space and how that might feed taxes back into the alliance to make up for the moon goo changes.
Personally it has been a bit of a culture shock to go from basing out of NPC 0.0 to Sov 0.0 but the best thing so far is not needing to clone jump to empire to run L4s for isk. It is much better being able to get decent isk ratting for 30 mins with friends and then spend the rest of the time pvping instead of solo L4s then waiting on JC timers.
Vote TeaDaze for CSM5!
|
TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2010.04.28 21:08:00 -
[7]
Next question.
Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev Can't see that as something to be proud of. I mean, how is that relevant to CSM, that you have no blues? How does it make you a better candidate?
Firstly Agony exists to PvP and having to maintain blue lists is time consuming and reduces the number of potential targets . Nothing causes us more problems than system after system of blues
Of course as you are aware we are willing to work with other groups on a temporary blue basis, such as the situation this week in provi. But as before we will reset standings as soon as we can and go back to killing and being killed
It isn't anything personal, we just treat 0.0 as a PvP playground. At the end of the day Eve is a game and we want to have fun doing what we enjoy
Secondly we run PvP training and the more blues we have the more of a headache it is to run the practical roams. Diplomatic incidents due to students shooting our blues (or more likely being shot by them) we can do without when we have a class of 60+ students under our FCs.
Does the usual lack of blues make me a better CSM candidate? That is open to interpretation . It does mean I have a slightly different view of Eve politics than larger alliances where they have spent years blue to each other. Is my viewpoint more valid than theirs? Nope, they are just different and I feel both opinions deserve to be represented on the CSM (and lets face it, large powerblocs will have their representation unless thousands of non-bloc voters suddenly decide to support the elections this time )
Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev Do you think the rewards of nullsec need to be further improved (ratting being in the main scope for me, but if you have more ideas- sure)
At the summit, CSM4 suggested reducing the number of frig and cruiser rats and increasing the number of BS. This would hopefully raise the isk per hour without getting unbalanced.
Anomalies could also scale slightly based on the number of people doing them, such that a group of 5 people in (for example) a sanctum or haven would cause more rats in each respawn (with an upper limit of course). This would help increase the number of people each system can support as well as promoting teamwork.
I'd also like to see other profession sites and upgrades be made more viable.
Lastly and without wanting to go :broken record: I'm interested to see how planetary interaction will vary between NPC and SOV 0.0 because if done right it could be another nice isk stream.
Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev You have any real ideas of how to make roaming gangs purposefull, other then forcing bears to play sniptheship?
I'll assume by making roaming gang purposeful you mean something to do other than running around looking for similar sized gangs to fight while trying to avoid far bigger gangs and hot drops
At the summit, CSM4 suggested reducing the EHP of outpost services (and putting the majority into resists so a gang could theoretically remote rep tank them while fighting back). Whilst it might not be much more than an inconvenience to the owner it would at least give a gang some small victory (and opens up some situational tactics like making it possible to knock out the repair facility to hinder docking games).
There has been talk of disrupting infrastructure upgrades and similar things. The trick (again) is giving smaller gangs something meaningful to do whilst not making it too trivial for a far larger gang.
At the end of the day you can't force people to fight if they don't want to undock, and if you could force them it would likely just end up with numbers escalation.
If elected to CSM5 I'll certainly be looking out for any good ideas for small roaming gang PvP amongst other things
Vote TeaDaze for CSM5!
|
TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2010.04.30 12:29:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Retlok An idea that's been pitched around some is that of transferable kill rights, generally tied into the idea of fixing the bounty system to create a viable player profession as a bounty hunter. I know it's controversial, but to me it seems like an interesting way to increase the pvp opportunities in low/hi-sec. I'll admit to being fairly new to EVE and maybe not understanding the complexities of the issue; I may be operating from nostalgia from the days of being a bounty hunter in SWG.
What do you think about a revamp of the kill rights or bounty system? And with your experience on the CSM, do you feel that this would be a change that the CSM could successfully advocate for or is it beyond the scope of reasonable issues?
Thanks in advance for your feedback!
I'm in favour of player driven content so an overhaul to the bounty system would fit in with that.
Lets look at kill rights. You are awarded the right to kill the ship of a player (not his pod) if the following conditions are met (from the eve wiki)
- Somebody destroys your ship (though bizarrely pod kills are not counted)
- You were not at war with them, criminally flagged or otherwise a valid target
- You have taken no action to defend yourself.
These rules apply in both empire and lowsec but not in 0.0 (which is to be expected).
Firstly I wonder what the reason is for not including pods in this (other than the fact that a pod can never aggress so rights would always be granted). Secondly if you want to be granted a kill right you have to sit there and do nothing thus giving a kill away for free.
It would be interesting if kill rights were granted even if you (unsuccessfully) attempted to defend yourself but without more investigation and discussion I'm not sure if that would unbalance things. The concern is that PvP in lowsec (for example) frequently ends up in a stalemate when nobody wants to shoot first (because they will get the 15 min criminal flagging, sec loss and sentry fire). Add getting kill rights against you to that list and lowsec PvP becomes even worse (unless "flashy" pirates are involved because they don't care about sec hits and killrights ). Lowsec needs buffs not nerfs!
Assuming you have a kill right, what about a better bounty system. You currently get paid the bounty for pod killing the player, but the usual engagement rules apply so it is totally possibly to get yourself flagged and have concord come to visit when trying to collect the bounty (this depends on the target's sec status). Of course as soon as the bounty becomes significantly large enough to justify sec hits etc to try and kill the player then that player will easily get an alt to pod them and collect their own bounty! Large bounties end up as bragging rights rather than an incentive to hunt a target.
So what can we do here?
We have a contract system so how about adding assassination contracts? This would allow a player to take out a contract on another player and assign a bounty/reward. They could also have the option to assign a kill right (if one exists). If not a new contract type then some way to create a "dossier" object which contains all the information for the "hit" and can be contracted via the item exchange or auction system. Auctions could be fun if people really wanted the kill rights on a player (possibly bidding more than the reward!). It would also be amusing if the target bought their own killrights back .
To control griefing there may need to be some limits on how many contracts a month against the same player or maybe restrict it so you can only take out a contract when you have a killright against them.
Would CSM be able to get systems like this implemented? I can't promise it but I would be happy to discuss and raise something. However if Incarna is supposed to open up shady "off the network" dealings then it might fit right in!
Vote TeaDaze for CSM5!
|
TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2010.04.30 17:24:00 -
[9]
Edited by: TeaDaze on 30/04/2010 17:25:23
Originally by: Hel O'Ween Edited by: Hel O''Ween on 30/04/2010 16:09:07
Quote:
I'm in favour of (where possible) buffing a weaker item instead of nerfing stronger ones. I feel that not all ships need to be good at solo PvP and that racial differences should be maintained rather than homogenizing everything. That said balance is important and must be maintained in some way.
I disagree with that PoV. It's like in IT if the software doesn't do its job (proper resource handling/usage), throw more hardware at it. You don't cure the cause that way, only the symptom. Or at a music gig: turn up the volume of one instrument instead of turning down the rest: you'll end up either with a giant feedback or messy sound that way.
There's of course always the exception to that rule, but it should be an exception: if you can't hear the guitar at all right from the start, put it's volume on par with the rest of the band.
That said, I have no issues with your candidacy at all. I personally just feel you tackle this issue from the wrong side. Good luck to you (and most of the other candidates).
I did qualify that statement with "where possible" Of course there will always be specific examples such as the types you list.
But I think balance in Eve is more like your counter argument (everything else is too quiet) than the main one (one thing is too loud). In general there are ship classes where one or two ships are fine but the others are not. In your IT example if the cause is known to be a weakness in one area of code then by removing that weakness you can get it to use the resources more effectively.
Specific Eve example: The thrasher is acknowledged to be the best destroyer for PvP whilst the others have various issues with fittings, slots etc. Do you upgrade the other destroyers to better match the thrasher's capabilities (maintaining some racial differences of course) or do you simply nerf the thrasher?
Again it is situational as it depends on the changes but as a general principle (and where possible) I prefer things to become better not worse
Vote TeaDaze for CSM5!
|
TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2010.05.04 13:18:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Ecatherina W Do you have any ideas that might make it easier for smallish alliances - such as Agony fx. - to take and maintain sov?
Originally by: True Rasta What will be the carrot for low sec?
Short answer to both of these questions - I'm not claiming to have all the answers but if voted back into CSM I will continue to support proposals relating to these issues. The most important point is I have relevant experience in both of these areas.
However I do have a few specifics for those wondering about my position on things.
Sov for smaller Alliances Actually taking Sov without help is most likely out of the question at the moment and I'm not sure it should be. The issue is that if a group of 50 active players could take Sov then 500 players will be able to take Sov with no trouble at all - and that is ignoring any people trying to defend.
I'm willing to look at ideas around this but for now it isn't realistic for smaller entities to take and hold Sov without initial help from other alliances. If the promised formalised treaty system was in place this could open the playing field a bit.
Lowsec The first major issue here is to define what lowsec actually is (other than 0.1 to 0.4 space ). In lowsec you of course have PvP and pirates but you also have Factional Warfare (split between PvP, mission running and plexing), Industrial Pos (moon mining, reactions, Drugs), Agents (all missions up to and including L5s), logistic bases (carrier jumping assets to 0.0) and so on. The PvP is a bit different in lowsec to 0.0 but that is down to removal of bubbles and bombs (and currently doomsdays) and the addition of the global criminal flag.
CCP seem to treat lowsec just as a stepping stone to 0.0. However I understand that for some people 0.0 Sov war is not the Eve endgame!
So which of the areas of lowsec needs to be improved? Lowsec needs different things added to it to give the various inhabitants reason to stay. In addition there needs to be a clear divide between lowsec and 0.0. This means adding things to Lowsec not available in 0.0 (the reverse is already true). Lets have a look at specific areas.
- Pirates: We hear a lot of people talk of consequences for your actions, but when players choose to become pirates they don't really gain anything . I believe that as Highsec is closed off to a -5 and below pirate that something should open up in return. I have mooted the idea of pirate only stargates which would link different systems than the usual gates. This would give pirates a mobility advantage when stalking their prey or when being chased. It would also open a potential flashpoint in systems for anti-pirates to lurk. The idea isn't fully formed as yet but I have been discussing it with pirates to get feedback.
For anyone wondering, my sec status is +5 and so this wouldn't actively benefit me
- Industry: I'm not sure what to suggest here, much depends on how Planetary Interaction turns out. Any improvements to POS mechanics would be a welcome boost but that isn't unique to Lowsec. If players have good ideas for this I will give them serious consideration.
- Factional Warfare: I have run FW missions but unlike other candidates I have also participated in the ad-hoc fleet fights and had fun shooting other players . FW has the potential to be so much more than the current system allows, it should be the best place to pick up a quick fleet and go PvP till your ship explodes. Unique navy items were a nice boost for the mission runners but the PvP side seems to lack rewards and many of the FW mission runners are not willing to PvP. More dynamic missions or missions that put opposite faction players in direct competition could be interesting.
Hopefully that gives some answers though of course it does open questions too
TL:DR If elected to CSM5 I will support proposals to improve Lowsec
Vote TeaDaze for CSM5!
|
|
TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2010.05.05 12:56:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Crystal Tigress How do I get you to take on a proposal? I have some issues with corp deliveries - I want to be able to sort them by region. Is that something you would be taking on, even if you are not (I presume) a trader?
The procedure for any proposal is to raise the issue in the assembly hall. Check the sticky post at the top of this forum for hints and tips on raising issues.
As far as getting somebody to pick it up, you can eve mail the proposal link to the CSM reps in game and one of them should raise it. I do pick up stuff outside my core gameplay when I feel it is being ignored.
Vote TeaDaze for CSM5! |
TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2010.05.05 13:00:00 -
[12]
For those interested I did an email interview with Keith Neilson. There are other candidate interviews to read too and I'm glad to see the Eve blogging community taking the CSM process to heart
Vote TeaDaze for CSM5! |
TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2010.05.06 16:07:00 -
[13]
Edited by: TeaDaze on 06/05/2010 16:10:27
Originally by: Wyke Mossari Your manifesto states you prefer to avoid Nerfs. The nerf T2 BPO thread has a clear majority against this nerf. However Vote Match states you are strongly in favour of nerfing T2 BPOs.
How do you justify this inconsistency?
Firstly I never said I won't support any nerfs just as I won't support every buff. As I stated, I prefer to buff other items instead of nerfs. However in some instances CCP feel action has to be taken even if we as the players dislike it.
On the subject of T2 BPOs I agree with a number of players that it is time they were changed into high run BPCs or remove the penalties on invented T2 BPCs instead. The thread you mention makes a reasonable request and has more supports than many of the issues raised by CSM so why should it be ignored?
Originally by: Wyke Mossari On what other issues would you ignore voter sentiment to pursue your own personal agenda?
But I'm not ignoring voter sentiment! I'm choosing in this instance to support a group of people who you appear to disagree with. On other issues the reverse may be true. The wonderful thing about the CSM is that all views are taken into consideration and because it is rare for 100% of players to agree on anything there will always be somebody who "loses".
I don't have any personal agenda of pet projects to push through CSM. I am running as I did last time on the platform of ensuring the CSM process is adhered to, well documented and that everyone has the chance to have their views represented.
It is my belief that if an issue gets a good number of supports then it should be dealt with, even if it ends up being raised and rejected (which would block it being raised again for a while ).
Vote TeaDaze for CSM5! |
TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2010.05.07 03:00:00 -
[14]
Thanks for all the messages of support
For those who haven't yet decided, another plug for Vote Match - though I urge you to support me so I can continue to spend many hours a week writing up your proposals and publishing meeting minutes etc
Vote TeaDaze for CSM5! |
TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2010.05.07 23:11:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Xyfu You say the UI will not be completely overhauled, and I agree, but no-one can deny that it's not perfect. What would be your stance on an EVE UI version of the recent "One hundred papercuts" approach, that Canonical used for Ubuntu?
Short term this could address the most pressing issues, but at some point CCP will have to bite the bullet and commit to a full overhaul of the core UI. If we are lucky they might be able to come up with a roadmap of building replacement UI elements in stages and effectively phase in a new UI over time.
Only CCP can decide when to commit to this, but until then I am willing to support (and have already supported) proposals related to UI improvements.
Whilst on the hot button issues, I also support (and CSM4 already discussed it at length with CCP at the summit) issues relating to Lag reduction.
No candidate is going to deny that lag isn't an issue for many people. However the fact is the CSM can't fix lag. The CSM can keep pressure on CCP to investigate solutions but only they can deliver a working solution. Anyone outside of the CCP dev team doesn't have the knowledge to design a fix and whilst ideas seem obvious on paper they have likely been discussed already.
I am restricted by what I can discuss on the subject because we had a detailed presentation before the lag discussion (at the level of showing various performance numbers) and I'm not going to risk leaking NDA information. Of course this allows people to claim I'm ignoring the issue
Anyway, thanks again to my supporters and I hope some of the potential supporters can see my commitment to the CSM process
Vote TeaDaze for CSM5! |
TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 23:53:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Zothike if u could eventually have a look on this proposal http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1040532 not a big change, not hard to do for dev (i this but can be wrong), and would make many player and server load happy = win for everybody
This would be a nice addition. However for me to raise it at the next CSM meeting it needs to be posted as a proposal in the Assembly Hall forum (I'd suggest putting a link to the proposal in your ideas thread so people can support it). I prefer players to post their ideas directly so I don't take the credit
Once it is in the Assembly Hall forum I can get things moving
Vote TeaDaze for CSM5! |
TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2010.05.12 02:36:00 -
[17]
Once again thank you to all my supporters. I think I've finally caught up on all the eve-mails
Just the one question to answer here though.
Originally by: Stovo kor Is it possible to elaborate on the wormhole points in your manifesto
As part of CSM4 I raised and/or supported a number of wormhole related proposals (refitting T3 ships in wspace, shared corp bookmarks, saving probe formations).
As I don't live in a wormhole system I won't try to second guess what issues players find while living there. However I will continue to support proposals raised by w-space residents and if you have any specific areas that you feel need to be looked at I would be happy to discuss various ideas.
Vote TeaDaze for CSM5! |
TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 03:31:00 -
[18]
Those of you who follow me on Twitter or my blog will have already seen this
The beta version of my CSM Database site is up and running.
It allows you to see the voting results of each meeting or a combined list of all proposals plus you can click on a delegate and see all the issues they raised.
IÆll be adding various tweaks and so on as people suggest ideas, plus OmberZombie has been in touch about uploading the data from CSM2, which is great. Thanks also to TÆAmber for the title image
Have a look and let me know what else you would like to see included on the site.
Vote TeaDaze for CSM5! |
TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2010.05.15 17:42:00 -
[19]
Agony are running a free seminar in support of my campaign.
The seminar is on Sunday (May 16th) at 1300 EVE time and is about the oft-noticed and commented-on part of Agony operations: Scouting and Skirmishing.
If you are interested, go here and sign up
Vote TeaDaze for CSM5! |
TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2010.05.18 16:36:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Tzimon As a low SP pilot I want to know if there has been any thought of doing a review of all the T1 ships, going back and ensuring that they still are performing as they were originally intended in today's world.
I feel that with all the game mechanic and mod changes that these ships no longer perform as intended and you get what we see today; Which are a handful of T1 hulls being used in abundance while the majority are barely seen other than gimmick fits.
In my opinion it is time to "flatten" the tiers in some ship classes. There are (for example) a handful of generally useful frigates and cruisers, a few which have very niche roles (mining/scanning) then too many "also rans" which exist just to be a base for the T2 variation (slasher for example).
Because it doesn't take much time to train from one tier to the next there isn't really any need to have such a gulf between the terrible and the awesome in a ship class. For instance very few people are going to use any other minmatar frigate than a rifter for longer than it takes them to train frigate 3. I think adding a slot or two along with a bit more PG and/or CPU would make ships like the breacher more viable for long term use.
It is good to have variations between ships within class and also between different races, but this should be on a role basis and not simply down to less overall slots and fitting.
The ships are already in the game so a few tweaks shouldn't take a large amount of time and it would benefit not only brand new players but also those players taking their first steps into PVP (Agony Unleashed PVP Basic plug )
Vote TeaDaze for CSM5! |
|
|
|
|